I generally find myself in agreement with the empiricists, in general. Though, I also find myself defending a priori more than I expect to. I have no problem with a priori as the well developed method it is. Clearly, in mathematics and science, we have a great deal of use for it. Black holes were initially presented for a priori reasons, only later to be found in reality. My general alignment with the empiricists stems from the fact that I have a hard time with the notion that we could have a priori truths without empirical basis. For example:
We know that when we have one apple, and receive another apple, that we now have two apples. This can be represented as 1+1=2. The truth of the equation holds true regardless of what the numbers represented (apples or anything else). However, if we imagine a world in which when we have one apple, and are given another apple, we somehow had three apples in our posses, then the statement would change to 1+1=3. Because this seems silly, getting a second apple an magically having three, I understand why rationalists tend to view the a priori as true independent of empirical truth; I would challenge a rationalists to show me something that is a priori true which is empirically false.
Something cannot be empirically true and a priori false because the latter follows from the former.